Who is the one who must "prove"

[Spirit of Light]

Some parts of religions the negative outweighs the positive. If two people went to the same story Isaac and Abraham, one would see, in simple terms, god telling his follower to kill his son for him/god. A parent killing their son for their religious belief is negative in and of itself. Of course one can say (the other) "oh, Isaac is fine. God is a god of justice." etc but the fact that he (or it's biblically written) he sanctioned a death of a child by a parent in itself is negative.

Unless someone believed in god, how would a disbeliever find positive in a story where parents can kill their children by god's command?

Anyway. The negative does outweigh the positive only because the negative you can see it by study from historians, objective conclusions, people's experiences, etc. The positive can only be seen if believers wish to share their testimonies. Pointing to books shows good and bad points but if a believer really wants others to see the truth they say it is, they need to get more personal.



Yeah. When I was Catholic it bothered me as well: you're a pagan, you're not a real question, you worship blocks of cement; you're drinking real blood.

Some things are quite ridiculous. But I'm sure your experiences would eventually see their view has a justified cause. I don't believe one should be ignorant of the negativities of their religion (and put fault on those who see it that way) because of the positives.

Speaking of people in general.



Ha. I just got through a D couple months ago. Both classes.



True. Which there's nothing inherently and spiritually wrong with that.

They don't accept it because it is not spiritually healthy for their well-being. A math book is just a math book to me, but to my friend whose a financial advisor would look at me silly if I said that (which I did). Likewise, I tell her that music makes me swoon and she says it's a distraction.

Of course I'm shocked she doesn't like music (and still am), but it's not her fault and she's not ignorant because she doesn't like music. I have to accept and be happy for her in the interest she finds that makes her happy and see life better. Hers is scientific. Mine is art-istic.

She is also a christian. I don't care for christianity. I don't tell her, though, why she doesn't believe as if she has a fault but I support her in our belief. We talk sometimes about the bible and she tells me a bit of how she sees god.

I feel that's what believers should do with non-believers. If there is trust or friendship, there should be support for the other person's spiritual well-being without reference to one's own.



Another way to put it, "one who do not see the teaching as other than words may not see the teaching of god and this book as healthy for their wellbeing." Maybe see it from their point of view not yours?

My new view of non believers is that i have no problem with them and they could become my best friends. Yes the discussion could be intense from time to time, but i have no ill thoughts about those who do not believe.
Reason for this change within meyou ask? My answer is Islam

 

[Spirit of Light]

I would be crazy if I said I can.
But what I might be able to do is prove that some of your beliefs are inconsistent and contradict each other. If I could do that, I would not have proven that Allah does not exist, but I would have proven that you do not understand

• either the law of non-contradiction,
• or what you believe.

This is true. As a new converted muslim, yes i have a lot to learn and understand now. My answers for the time being about Islam and the teaching can be with errors, but when i learn the more correct answer i become better in answering questions asked to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no issue with the subjective internal lives of others, what I object to is if there are real world (negative) consequences.


All things considered, imo, there is no god of any flavour. But it's a non-issue in my life, I'm a non-theist, not an atheist. I'm only responding to such OPs because the relentless "badgering" of others occasionally stirs me to post once or twice every now and then.

That is subjective as there is no objective referent for the word "real". What is real, is subjective.

 

[exchemist]

If we are talking personal, subjective feelings or experience then I have no problem with that. Obviously we all have that. But there is no expectation (well, there should not be) that others should accept such as objectively true, without supporting evidence. My head is no doubt full of all sorts of nonsense but I keep it to myself unless asked because I know I cannot support it. I have no issue with the subjective internal lives of others, what I object to is if there are real world (negative) consequences.


All things considered, imo, there is no god of any flavour. But it's a non-issue in my life, I'm a non-theist, not an atheist. I'm only responding to such OPs because the relentless "badgering" of others occasionally stirs me to post once or twice every now and then.

I agree with much of this. Perhaps we are envisaging different scenarios, though. You seem to be envisaging the issue of the existence of God coming up in the context of someone trying to evangelise you (which I agree can be bloody annoying). I was envisaging a discussion in which the subject comes up in the pub and various people say what position they hold, and perhaps how they justify it to themselves, but without trying to persuade others.

 

[Valjean]

Logically, asking for proof of an assertion written on a blank slate, makes no sense, there's nothing written on it, yet that's all atheism is, at its core: a non-belief, a tabula rasa.
There is no assertion to be defended.

Atheism is the epistemic default we're born with; a non-belief. What is it you'd have us 'prove'?

 

[HonestJoe]

But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?

I think there are a couple of key factors you're missing to understand this.

First, there is a distinction between people saying they just don't accept your assertion and them saying it is explicitly false. I would argue that the vast majority of people fall in to the former (especially in the real world as opposed to on internet forums ).

Second is that you're not just saying some kind of god exists, you're talking about a very specifically defined god with a whole load of characteristics, actions and concepts associated with them. Someone questioning your position aren't necessarily saying no gods exist, they could just think a different kind of god (or gods) do. After all, there are lots of people who believe in essentially the same god you do but build quite different sets of religious beliefs around it.

So, if someone is making a positive assertion that a god (or gods in general) certainly don't exist, they do indeed have the same responsibility to support their position as those who assert that some specific god exist. If someone is presented with your specific set of beliefs and questions or challenges them though, they're not in the same position. They'd still need to present valid arguments but they don't need to definitively prove any alternative, only provide enough to reduce the confidence in your claims.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It is called the burden of proof, you make the claim, you provide the proof.

But you are correct, that if an atheist claim that God doesn't exist, then you can demand them to provide evidence as well. Which they can't

Well there is a prior to this - as to proving a God exists - just as all the other assertions, so why is it any different? You can't expect your first statement to be true and the second - unless going the route of agnosticism - which is fair. In which case many assertions are true in that we can't prove otherwise.

 

[Altfish]

I have often seen someone say.

You must prove to me that your God exist. So the non believer claim that a believer must prove his or her personal belief.

But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?

So the challange will then be. Non believers can you prove my faith is untrue or false or can you prove that other peoples faith or religion is untrue or wrong?

And no i have no desire to mock you for not believing, feel free to disbelieve.
Maybe it is the disbelief in any sign of a God that make you unable to see God the way a believer do?

I would like to hear your take on this.
And remember, this is in the discussion area of RF, not in debate area

Can you prove that The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?
Read about Russell's Teapot ....
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Can you prove that The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?
Read about Russell's Teapot ....
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia.

Personally i do not believe it, but i have not seen any flying teapot or spagetti monster( except for the one teapot my ex did throw at me once)

 

[pearl]

But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?

The difficulty with proving a negative.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have often seen someone say.

You must prove to me that your God exist. So the non believer claim that a believer must prove his or her personal belief.

But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?

So the challange will then be. Non believers can you prove my faith is untrue or false or can you prove that other peoples faith or religion is untrue or wrong?

And no i have no desire to mock you for not believing, feel free to disbelieve.
Maybe it is the disbelief in any sign of a God that make you unable to see God the way a believer do?

I would like to hear your take on this.
And remember, this is in the discussion area of RF, not in debate area

Contradiction the concept of a vague attempt to 'prove' is a debate question.

The reality is no one can 'prove' any aspect of this. People argue for what they believe a priori.

 

[Secret Chief]

So far they have not given one that clearly show God do not exist

I can't think of what might constitute proof of the non-existence. Can you?

 

[Secret Chief]

any of the proves

Such as?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I can't think of what might constitute proof of the non-existence. Can you?

Is it non existence just because it is in a different realm then the visible realm we live in?
Or must it be "proven" by science before it becomes real?

 

[rational experiences]

I would ask the human who says I can prove God, to ask what is the form of God that you are discussing as the image and thoughts within your own mind?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Such as?

?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Logically, asking for proof of an assertion written on a blank slate, makes no sense, yet that's all atheism is, at its core: a non-belief, a tabula rasa.
There is no assertion to be defended.

Atheism is the epistemic default we're born with; a non-belief. What is it you'd have us 'prove'?

Prove there is a "we" for example. You assert a "we" so now defend it.

 

[Secret Chief]

farfetched and give you an "Optimistic" rating.

Hey I didn't know that was an ironic thing!

 

[Secret Chief]

?

You said
"any of the proves"

So I said "such as" i.e. provide an example of what you consider to be proof.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You said
"any of the proves"

So I said "such as" i.e. provide an example of what you consider to be proof.

The proves to me is in the spiritual teachings